Board of Review turns scout down- how to move forward?

[mikecummings157]

Our Troop just conducted a Board of Review for one of our scouts for Life and he was turned down. I now have to help the boy move forward (I'm the Scoutmaster). I'm interested in what process other troops follow to notify the scout he's turned down and how to help him become eligible to appear in front of the BOR again.

 

BTW- there is no issue with either myself or the parents disagreeing with the decision.

[Basementdweller]

There really is no turn down in a board of review......He just needs more time or a little more work.

 

What grounds did they delay his advancement???

[The Blancmange]

Pursuant to the ACP&P, the Board who declines to advance a scout at the time, the scout is supposed to "be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily." Further, "The members of the BOR should specify what must be done to rework the canidate's weaknesses and schedule another board of review for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to a scout who is turned down for rank advancement, confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement."

 

Did this discussion take place at the BOR? If not, perhaps the board should provide this information to the scout and go from there.

[moosetracker]

Well with our BOR, the scout leaves the room, the board discusses then the scout is brought back in for the verdict.. Most times positive. So it is not left to the SM to tell the boy he has been denied.

 

There must be a clear cut reason why he was denied. Since parents & you agree with the decision, I would assume very clear.

 

You may want to discuss with the board some ideas you have that you might want to present as ideas to the scout for him to rectify the situation just to make sure that you both agree if he does a, b, or c, he will pass his next board..

 

Give him a clear reason why he was denied and clear ideas of how to go about fixing the problem. Don't leave him as the only one left in the dark, and not sure what to do to fix things.

[perdidochas]

Question:

 

If you agree that the BOR did the right thing, why did you let him proceed to the BOR in the first place?

[Eagle92]

Peri,

 

A scout does have the right to ignore the SM's advice and go ahead with a BOR.

[perdidochas]

Not if the Scoutmaster doesn't sign off on the SM conference as successful.

[Eagle92]

Peri,

 

According to the advancement guidelines, a SMC is NOT pass/fail. So a SM cannot refuse to sign off on a SMC even if he deems the scout not ready for advancement, and a scout can request a BOR over the objections of the SM. Further if the SM refuses to signoff on the SMC, there is apparently a way to go forward with the BOR. There was a very long discussion on this about a year back in the advancement thread.

[Stosh]

If I have a SMC with a boy, it is not pass/fail. If he hasn't done the work and still wants a BOR, the SMC is complete and the requirement fulfilled. If the board is lenient and passes him along, so be it. If they postpone their decision until later that's okay too. Either way the SM has nothing to do with the process. He/She only has one requirement, hold a conference with the boy. End of discussion.

 

Stosh

[perdidochas]

Strange, because the other committee members told us that the BOR wasn't pass/fail, the SMC was to determine if the Scout was ready.

 

What are the official guidelines?

[Beavah]

Yah, to go back to mikecummings157's question...

 

Most troops I know will bring the boy back into the room and tell him straight up what things remain to be done / improved upon, with some suggestions to the boy on how to proceed with them. Most will also offer encouragement and support, and tell the boy when they want to see him again at a BOR to finish the rank. This seems to work well, in a couple of ways. First, the BOR members should be responsible for their decision and conveying it clearly to the boy. If they can't do that, then there's probably somethin' wrong with the Board. Second, it sets the SM up to be the friendly mentor who helps the boy to succeed in meeting the expectations of the board.

 

Sometimes a lad (or his parents) won't accept a SM's "advice" at a conference and proceed to a BOR. In deferring the boy, they support the SM and set the SM up to be the "good guy I should listen to" in order to be successful. That's an OK role for the board to play.

 

As peridochas says, it's also common for the SM to play da gatekeeper role. That has an advantage of being a bit more consistent, eh? Consistency in BORs is often a concern. At da same time, it has a disadvantage in that it can affect the positive, mentoring relationship a SM should have.

 

Beavah

 

[ScoutNut]

Once again - There is no such thing as not signing off on a SM Conference. The conference either happens, or it does not happen.

 

From the Advancement Committee Policies an Procedures -

 

"The requirement for advancement is that the Scout participates in a Scoutmaster conference, not that he passes the conference. When advancement is going to be deferred, the Scout should not come to the Scoutmaster conference thinking that everything is OK and then be surprised that his advancement is deferred. He should have had plenty of warning and guidance prior to the Scoutmaster conference. This is not a time to shut the door on advancement, but rather to work with the Scout to create goals that will allow him to succeed. However, even after a negative Scoutmaster conference for the ranks of Tenderfoot to Life, if the Scout desires a board of review, he should be granted his request."

 

As far as the OP poster's question, this is covered in both the SM Handbook and in Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures -

 

"If the board decides that the Scout is not ready to advance, the candidate should be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily. Most Scouts accept responsibility for not completing the requirements properly. The members of the board of review should specify what must be done to rework the candidates weaknesses and schedule another board of review for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to a Scout who is turned down for rank advancement, confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement. Should the Scout disagree with the decision, the appeal procedures should be explained to him."

 

The BOR members should have followed the above procedure and told the Scout, then and there, that he did not pass his BOR. It is not your job to tell this Scout, or to figure out what he now needs to do. What did the BOR tell this young man? What did the BOR tell you?

 

The BOR needs to send this Scout a letter ASAP, and copy you (as SM) on it, so that everyone is on the same page.

 

After that happens you should sit down with the Scout and talk about what he needs to do.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I understand da attraction of letters to the legal-minded scouter crowd. And sometimes it is best to do 'em.

 

Most of the time, though, I think the sending-the-boy-a-formal-BOR-letter is overkill, eh? We're not an HR department trying to document cause for termination. We're just a bunch of friendly adults trying to challenge a young man to improve. To my mind, that's best done with a conversation in person, and without the sense of formal reprimand that comes with a documentary letter.

 

Just me.

 

Different units use SM conferences different ways, and that's an OK thing. Especially when yeh have weak or untrained BOR members as happens from time to time in troops, a SM being consistent can be a good thing for boys rather than a bad thing.

 

Let's not confuse different techniques as being right or wrong. It's a choice of what's best for the circumstances and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

Mike,

 

I commend you for wanting to work with this Scout to overcome this minor adversity. Hopefully, his embrace of it will make him stronger in the weeks to come!

 

Now, a friendly cup of coffee between you and the CC is in order. The first key point is the CC needs to have the moral courage to be his own heavy, and inform the boy:

- He was not ready for advancement.

- Here is the Boards' specific thinking.

- Here are the topics the Scout must address before advancing.

 

As noted by others, the Board also has to put this in writing and deliver it to the Scout.

 

Now, feedback is a gift. The CC should have already visited with you and discussed the program weaknesses, if any, that brought this Scout to non-advancement. If he has not, then another part of your friendly cup of coffee is "Why haven't you shared the causes with me yet?"

 

As before, I commend you for wanting to work with the Scout. He's not going to be on top of the world, and he needs encouragement. Give him room to put his own ideas together, encourage him, and then provide the opportunities needed for his ideas to take hold.

 

Now, a couple direct questions:

 

- Did you tell the Scout he was ready for his BOR?

-- Do you agree with the BOR findings?

-- If not, do their findings conform with BSA policy?

-- If yes, have you on your own identified any program weaknesses and looked to how to correct them?

 

- If he asked for an advancement BOR against your recommendation, did you give him a heads-up that non-advancement was a possible consequence?

 

I look forward to your responses

[Proud Eagle]

I am having a bit of trouble with understanding this problem.

 

If all of the requirements were signed off by someone with the authority to sign them, then on what basis was he turned down? I know there can be legitmate reasons, but it seems like it should be pretty clear, like, "sorry, that requirement wasn't signed off by someone authorized to approve it" or "we need documentation of this since it isn't recorded in your book" or something along those line, or even perhaps "we think you haven't been living the oath and law as demonstrated when you vandalised that patrol box, tied little Johnny to that tree, etc, please improve and come back in X length of time" or the candidate could just be unable to complete the board for some reason.

 

I serve on our district avancement committee and regularly sit on Eagle BOR we conduct. We have turned Scouts away, but we were always very clear about why and set out a plan to correct the issue with the Scout agreeing to it. For example we once had a candidate show up late with no uniform and none of his documentation other than the application. We had a discussion in the parking lot when he arrived, discovered he wasn't ready, and suggested we could either proceed with the board or we could reschedule and just call that day a mulligan. He decided rescheduling would be best and did fine a week or so later, was very well prepared, and left us rather impressed. On another occasion there was a problem with a Scout's references and some dates on his application didn't work for time requirements (even though council had pre-approved the app), so we needed him to get valid references of sufficient quantity and find us documentation of those requiremetns of some sort. We scheduled a new time to try again and he was able to get what was needed to clear up the problems.

 

In my troop as a youth we went before a BOR on a semi-regular basis even if we were not yet ready to advance. The board would review or progress, work with us on setting goals, and even try to get an idea when we would be ready to advance. So the idea of leaving a BOR without advancing was normal, but usually when you thought you were ready the board would, too.

 

Your BOR really should let the Scout know what the decision is and if necessary how to correct any issues. If for some reason this is impossible, then they need to very clearly communicate to you what the decision is, and again what is needed to correct the issue. Further, you need to communicate this ASAP to the Scout. He should not be left uninformed of the decision, but should be told at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if the reasoning isn't quite clear, he needs to know he was not advanced yet, not left in some sort of limbo.